GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 1457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (12) TMI 1457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Recovery of interest and penalty - revision of prices of manufactured goods - duty not paid on revised prices - on pointing out duty was paid - time bar - whether, extended period of limitation in terms of the Proviso to Section 11A ibid can be invoked for recovery of interest on delayed payment of principle amount; and penalty can be imposed where there is no element of suppression, fraud, misstatement etc, with intent to evade payment of duty? - He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fides on the part of the appellant to defraud the Government Revenue. Since Rule 25 ibid is subject to the provisions of Section 11AC ibid, which clearly provides that in case of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, equal amount of penalty shall be imposed, and in absence of any specific findings to that effect by the authorities below, I am of the view that penalty imposed in the adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order is not sustained in the eyes of law. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

engaged in manufacture of body building motor vehicles, falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit on various inputs, input services and capital goods used in the manufacturing process. The appellant receives duty paid chassis from M/s Tata Motors and thereafter upon building the body, removes the same on payment of Central Excise Duty on some occasions, Tata Motors amends the purchase orders in view of revision in the sale prices. Based .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant and also for confirmation of interest liability and for imposition of penalty. The said SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 31.03.2009 in confirming the proposals made therein. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Sh. Shaswat, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the differential duty of ₹ 5,57,885/- was deposited by the appellant on 11.01.2005 and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Hon ble Bombay High Court against the said decision, reported in 2015 (325) ELT A-104 Bom. 4. With regard to penalty imposed in the adjudication order, the Ld. Advocate submits that provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 11AC ibid has been invoked by the authorities below, which is not proper and justified in the fact of this case inasmuch as non-payment of duty at the material time was due to oversight and not attributable to any malafides on the part of the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er is in conformity with the statutory provisions, the Ld. AR has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata vs Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (278) ELT 579 (SC), judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE and ST LTU Bangalore vs Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 593 (Kar.) and judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE & C. Aurangabad vs Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

differential duty was paid by the appellant on pointing out the mistake by the department on 11.01.2005 and thereafter the SCN was issued on 15.04.2008, seeking recovery of the interest amount and for imposition of penalty. The said SCN has been issued under the proviso to Section 11A ibid. The facts regarding finalization of the provisional price, issuance of supplementary bills, payment of differential duty etc. were known to the department, and in such eventuality, the department should have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ry of interest. The relevant paragraph in the said decision is extracted herein below. 11. The Central Excise Act provides a time limit of one year from the relevant date for demand of duty in normal circumstances and a time limit of five years for demand of duty in cases where fraud, suppression of facts, collusion, etc. are involved. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the assessee delayed payment of duty on account of any of these elements. On the other hand, it is very clear tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

invoices. Therefore, it was incumbent on the department to recover interest which the assessee had failed to pay within a reasonable period. In a similar case, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner v. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. [2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C.)] held as follows - It is only reasonable that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that when th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version